It Has Been 100% Proven That Trum's campaign Did Not Use Russian Interference

[Half-Life]

I just want to set the record straight. Hopefully, this thread will be the be all and end all of the Russia hoax.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...t-to-help-trump-win-2016-election-but-did-not

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit form a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote in his report released Thursday."

"Mueller said that while his investigation “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” there was not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front."

I still see people on this board claiming, "Russia collusion with Trump!" I just wanted to set the record straight. Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign.

Why do people still spout the "Russia collusion!" hoax? Trump has always said it was a hoax. Mueller proved it was a hoax. But, you guys think it's still real? I am very curious why. How can you refute the truth?

 

[Keith&Co.]

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government

Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.

not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front.

This statement does not support your thread title.

Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign

.Where did he say that?

Mueller proved it was a hoax

Nope.

 

[Half-Life]

Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
This statement does not support your thread title.

Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign

.Where did he say that?

Mueller proved it was a hoax

Nope.

What does this phrase mean to you, Keith?

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

 

[Patooka]

In case anyone is wondering where Half-life is going with this:

BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 04/18/19 01:04 PM EDT

This article was published a mere 4 hours after the report was released (which means it was actually written minutes after the report was released and was fast tracked through editorial and legal I assume) and three months before Mueller's testimony. And everything the article quotes is from AG Barr's 4 page lie fest that he had to later backpeddle, not the report itself.

At least you're sourcing articles, so that's progress.

 

[Patooka]

Personally, I believe if people are innocent, they tend to cooperate with investigations. As the Report shows:

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Page 10 of the report in case anyone is wondering. It's a bit rich to say anything has been proven when the Trump Administration went out of their way to make sure the evidence won't see the light of day. So much so, the evidence is most likely gone for good. Sorry, but innocent people aren't generally in the habit of destroying evidence and be uncooperative to law enforcement. In my experience at least.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

get it right.
If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?

 

[4321lynx]

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

get it right.
If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?

In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

get it right.
If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?

In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?

I dunno about British law.

MUELLER said he didn't investigate Trump because he couldn't indict no matter what he found. He also pointed out specifically that they could not exonerate Trump. Not sure how that translates, but it's pretty clear for anyone without a case of TDS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

get it right.
If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?

In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?

Yeah, I would really like to see an innocent/not proven/guilty system.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

You accidentally put a 1 in front of the zeroes on your thread title.

aa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I just want to set the record straight. Hopefully, this thread will be the be all and end all of the Russia hoax.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...t-to-help-trump-win-2016-election-but-did-not

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit form a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote in his report released Thursday."

"Mueller said that while his investigation “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” there was not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front."

I still see people on this board claiming, "Russia collusion with Trump!" I just wanted to set the record straight. Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign.

Why do people still spout the "Russia collusion!" hoax? Trump has always said it was a hoax. Mueller proved it was a hoax. But, you guys think it's still real? I am very curious why. How can you refute the truth?

Roger Stone was a FORMER campaign member who colluded with the campaign and Russia. So, technically, Mueller was right since the CURRENT campaign just indirectly colluded with Russia. Russianpublican traitors don't really care about the truth though which is why they want Bill Barr to lighten Roger Stone's sentence. You can whine about specific Mueller words the Russianpublicans cherry-picked from the report, but at the end of the day Roger Stone got convicted and President Dear Leader is crying about it on Twitter.

 

[Patooka]

I just want to set the record straight. Hopefully, this thread will be the be all and end all of the Russia hoax.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...t-to-help-trump-win-2016-election-but-did-not

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit form a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote in his report released Thursday."

"Mueller said that while his investigation “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” there was not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front."

I still see people on this board claiming, "Russia collusion with Trump!" I just wanted to set the record straight. Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign.

Why do people still spout the "Russia collusion!" hoax? Trump has always said it was a hoax. Mueller proved it was a hoax. But, you guys think it's still real? I am very curious why. How can you refute the truth?

Roger Stone was a FORMER campaign member who colluded with the campaign and Russia. So, technically, Mueller was right since the CURRENT campaign just indirectly colluded with Russia. Russianpublican traitors don't really care about the truth though which is why they want Bill Barr to lighten Roger Stone's sentence. You can whine about specific Mueller words the Russianpublicans cherry-picked from the report, but at the end of the day Roger Stone got convicted and President Dear Leader is crying about it on Twitter.

This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings. There's a documentry on Netflix called Get me Roger Stone. It was filmed early in 2017 and trust me, it has not aged well. It's worth watching for a giggle however.

 

[Gun Nut]

Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
This statement does not support your thread title..Where did he say that?Nope.

What does this phrase mean to you, Keith?

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

unfortunately, since Half-Life has proven himself to be a dishonest reporter of what someone else has written or said, as evidenced in dialog between he and I documented in various threads, one will need to revisit the report to read for oneself what was written, as his alleged quoting of it must be suspect.
That said, my recollection of the sentiment was a paraphrasing of the like, "Since a sitting president cannot be indicted by policy, it would be inappropriate to say if what Trump did would put someone else into prison, because that would serve as a form of indictment of a sitting president".
So they couldn't even have said that he totally did break the law, even that he did. That is what the report said, with a bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge in the direction of ,"he totally did break the law - we just can't even imply it - or Barr will fire us"

 

[funinspace]

Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.

I think H-L speaks Orange English, which has very little syntax and definitions are quite fungible and time independent.

 

[starwater]

Who is Trum anyway and why do I care about more lies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Who is Trum anyway and why do I care about more lies.

He's a fraud, and you're supposed to be triggered.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings.

Old news, years ago, back when people still thought there was a lower limit to the depths this administration would crawl.

Some even thought we had reached it!

Ah. The sweet, simply naivety of the insufficiently disappointed.

 

[Patooka]

This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings.

Old news, years ago, back when people still thought there was a lower limit to the depths this administration would crawl.

Some even thought we had reached it!

Ah. The sweet, simply naivety of the insufficiently disappointed.

Ah, yes. 2017. When we thought Game of Thrones was a good TV show, Bill Cosby was sketchy but still a good bloke and Trump would grow into the job of President and not corrupt it into an office that enables the whims of a man-child. Simpler times.

Bourbon was cheaper then as well.

 

[Elixir]

Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
This statement does not support your thread title..Where did he say that?Nope.

What does this phrase mean to you, Keith?

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

unfortunately, since Half-Life has proven himself to be a dishonest reporter of what someone else has written or said, as evidenced in dialog between he and I documented in various threads, one will need to revisit the report to read for oneself what was written, as his alleged quoting of it must be suspect.
That said, my recollection of the sentiment was a paraphrasing of the like, "Since a sitting president cannot be indicted by policy, it would be inappropriate to say if what Trump did would put someone else into prison, because that would serve as a form of indictment of a sitting president".
So they couldn't even have said that he totally did break the law, even that he did. That is what the report said, with a bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge in the direction of ,"he totally did break the law - we just can't even imply it - or Barr will fire us"

That's a pretty good recounting. A memo here, a crooked Senator there and pretty soon your President is wiping his ass with the Constition.